Michael Sharpe: Mind, Medicine and Morals: A Tale of Two Illnesses (2019) BMJ blog - and published responses

Is it normal practice to publish a " taster" and invite comments prior to publication of the full piece?
It just seems weird.
 
I keep misreading Dr Greco as Dr Gecko...

Tokay_gecko_%40Vnm.jpg
 
Is this following statement true?
Sharpe et al said:
fatigue has been found to be relieved to a similar degree by these treatments [CBT & GET] in both patients with cancer and patients with CFS
Click to expand...

We note that patients with illnesses that are associated with a disease, such as cancer, usually benefit from unqualified acceptance of their symptoms and associated disability. In this case, the presence of a disease ensures that the illness is considered ‘genuine’; a moral validation allows patients to claim the benefits of the sick role, including sympathy and exemption from duties, as well as permission to access publicly funded healthcare and other financial benefits. Consequently, patients are able to see the application of psychological and behavioural treatments for their fatigue as a benefit.

By contrast, we note that patients whose illnesses have not so far been found to be associated with generally accepted bodily disease (such as those with a diagnosis of CFS) find themselves in a much more morally uncertain position. They face the possibility that their experience of illness will be rejected as ‘not real’, with all the implications for acceptance, care and financial support that such a judgement implies.
Click to expand...
What a pile of contrived bile this is. The hypothesis these treatments are based on is totally unproven for ME/CFS, meaning their safety and efficacy are also unproven. That is the objection.
 
Barry said:
Is this following statement true?
Click to expand...

I suspect it is true to the extent that when people are asked they say their fatigue is reduced to a similar degree - i.e. not much. But fatigue has not been found to be relieved in any reliable way - at least not in ME.

It might be interesting to lookout the way self-reported fatigue changes in cancer patients. It might turn out to be rather more dramatic than the teensy bit of change in PACE (once you draw the full y axis).
 
Lucibee said:
but without any accompanying commentary as was promised. :(
Click to expand...
So much for discussion.

"We're here to discuss, as long as you agree with us."

I only skimmed because there's no point but I really like that the article cites the Kelland article for which Sharpe himself was the source. Sharpe is literally citing himself giving his opinion and using the publication of said opinion as a source to validate his own opinion. Truly a king ouroboros of bullshit.

Good job, hue manatee!
 
In this article, we explore a controversy surrounding illness-focused treatments for fatigue. We do this by contrasting their acceptance by people whose fatigue is associated with a disease (using the example of cancer-related fatigue) with their controversial rejection by some people whose fatigue is not associated with an established disease (chronic fatigue syndrome or CFS, sometimes called ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis)).
Click to expand...
(My bold.) Funny that. Last year on Twitter he was proclaiming that ME and CFS are two different conditions and that PACE only studied CFS and wasn't about ME. Previously, he had always stated that they are alternate names for one condition. When a few Twitterers supplied him with documentary evidence of his having previously said they are the same, he blocked those members. Now he's back to saying ME and CFS are the same thing again. Does he just change it to suit the intended audience of the moment?

ETA:
Daisybell said:
Luckily I don’t think many people will fall for this guff.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they do, at least here among the UK Establishment. Hook, line and sinker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom